| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Tom Cox (Tooting): The debate on this group of amendments is of interest both to me and to my constituents. I am one of the Members of Parliament who represent constituencies in the London borough of Wandsworth. Over a long period, the Conservative local authority has deliberately set out to lose as many of its education responsibilities as possible. It has encouraged schools, especially in my constituency, to opt out of the local education system. It then claims that it has nothing to do with the schools and has no authority over them. Because of that, the practice of selection has increased throughout the borough.
The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) should come to my constituency before he pays such glowing tributes to selection. He said that parents' views should be taken into account, but he should come to my constituency and hear what parents there are saying. They are angry and bitter about the system that has been in place in the borough for a number of years. It is no exaggeration to say that there are schools and head teachers in my constituency who make their own rules. They take no notice of the views of local parents.
The schools in my constituency that have adopted a selection procedure are: Graveney school, which selects 50 per. cent of its intake, as does Ernest Bevin; Burntwood, which selects 30 per cent.; and Chestnut Grove, which selects 40 per cent. on subject specialisation. In the borough generally, 10 schools have some form of selection or testing for entry. That system has been in place in Wandsworth for many years.
There are youngsters in the borough who live close to their local schools, but cannot get places in them, yet youngsters who do not live within the borough--often not even in adjacent boroughs--get places in those schools. Parents complain that the system is unfair and unjust. It is an abuse of the rights of young children. They set their hearts on getting into their local schools, but then, because of selection or entry procedures, they cannot get places.
Mr. Don Foster:
I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said. He will have seen the document "Choose a Wandsworth School". Page 3 tells parents that they should expect their children to undergo seven
Mr. Cox:
The hon. Gentleman has highlighted one of the criticisms about selection. I have to tell the Secretary of State and the Minister of State that I share the views of parents.
I was not a member of the Standing Committee. Had I been, I would have made many of the comments that I am making now. What my right hon. Friend said on Second Reading clearly suggested to parents and, indeed, to me, that there would definitely be a change in the selection procedures allowed in a number of authorities. My right hon. Friend said:
Clause 92 states:
We know that there are to be adjudicators who will decide disputes. This is the appropriate time to ask my hon. Friend the Minister to comment on this aspect of policy. Like my constituents, I want to know how adjudicators will approach such disputes. Unless changes are made, the disputes will continue. Can my hon. Friend tell us what the adjudicators' terms of reference will be? What will be their code of practice? There are head teachers in my constituency who have no intention of changing their entry policies unless legislation is introduced that obliges them to do so.
How will parents express their wishes to an adjudicator? Will a parent go to an adjudicator to complain about the non-entry of their child to a local school? Assuming that the parent wins the case, must the head of the school accept the decision, or can the head reject a decision that goes against him or her?
There are other questions on which I should like my hon. Friend to comment. Will there be a test case for a school, or will there be a succession of appeals to the
adjudicator by disgruntled parents who feel that their children have not been given the opportunity to get a place in the school of their choice because of the head teacher's attitude and the school's entrance policy? If the adjudicator finds in favour of the parents and allows the child to enter one of the schools that I mentioned, will that become a requirement of that school for all youngsters who seek entry into it? Those issues are repeatedly referred to me by local parents.
I close my remarks with one or two further points. Can my hon. Friend tell us how the adjudicator will be appointed? To whom will he or she report decisions? Will it be to the Secretary of State, and if so, what action could the Secretary of State take on the adjudicator's decision? Would the decision be binding on the Secretary of State, as well as on the school?
This is an extremely important local issue in my constituency. We have an opportunity in the debate this evening to clear up some of the doubts and confusion that, sadly, exist.
Mr. Dafis:
I shall speak to amendment No. 115, which would in effect delete clause 94 and remove the provision for the extension of selection by aptitude in one or more subjects. My amendment would have a similar effect to that tabled by the Liberal Democrats, and the opposite effect to amendments Nos. 90 and 91 tabled by the Conservatives.
I look forward to a Division on the amendments, which will unquestionably be a Division on the principle of selection. It will be a matter of whether we approve, to some degree, of selection, and whether we want an enhancement and strengthening of the selection principle in our education system.
The Secretary of State said that there was confusion on these Benches, and that the provisions of the Bill would phase out selection. I must tell him that the confusion is far more widespread than these Benches. Many people from all sectors of education have studied the Bill and come to the conclusion that it will extend selection, rather than reduce it.
The question is not why I and my hon. Friends tabled amendment No. 115, nor why the Liberal Democrats tabled a similar amendment in Committee and have tabled other amendments before us tonight. The issue is why the Government devised clause 94 in the first place. On top of the fact that they are allowing pre-existing arrangements to continue, they have devised a clause that extends the provision.
Might the Government have done that out of conviction? Are they enthusiastic about the idea of specialisation? Do they believe that certain schools with a specialism might offer high-quality provision, which would be available to pupils from other schools as well?
I know that that is being said, but I am highly sceptical about building specialisation formally into the school structure. I am certainly in favour of allowing schools to develop as centres of expertise and excellence in particular subjects, as the opportunities arise and as the talents of teachers at a particular time allow. Schools have always done that, and other schools have benefited from that example. If the intention was to extend that, one might see some merit in it, but why associate it with selection?
That brings me to my second hypothesis. Might the reason be that the Government have swallowed the George Walden line? The concern, which I believe is sincerely felt, is that the public-private divide is a fundamental flaw in the English school system, and that the only way to entice the private sector into the public sector parlour is by conceding to some degree on the issue of selection--allowing an element of selection as a way of trying to close the divide between the public and the private sector. If that is the case, the Government are conceding on a principle that is fundamental to a united, inclusive society. As far as Wales is concerned, they are addressing a problem that does not exist. We do not have that divide in Wales.
As a third possibility, do the Government feel that they must mollify sectors of the electorate whose loyalty they regard as necessary for electoral victory? They might be wrong about that, as some public opinion polls--which have already been mentioned in the debate--show. However, if such mollification was the Government's reason for compromising on a matter of fundamental principle, it was an even worse reason.
Margaret Tulloch, the spokesperson for the Campaign for State Education, CASE, said in a press release:
"I am able to confirm that the Bill and the criteria I will lay down as part of our admissions policy will remove partial selection where it currently exists . . . we are not against the exercise of a parental preference; we are against situations in which, for no other reason than the partial selection system and because parents are exercising their preference from a distance, local parents living in close proximity to a school . . . find it impossible to get their children into it."--[Official Report, 22 December 1997; Vol. 303, c. 664.]
That was a clear statement, which I welcomed--but it is not how I interpret the Bill, especially clause 92.
"Where at the beginning of the 1997-98 school year the admissions arrangements for a maintained school made provision for selection by ability or by aptitude",
there will be
"(a) no increase in the proportion of selective admissions in any relevant age group, and
I must say to my right hon. Friend that, unless those matters are cleared up this evening, there will be continuing concern among parents in my constituency about their right to seek entry for their youngsters to a local school. I do not intend to read loads of quotations, although it would be easy to do so--I am not exaggerating when I say that I have received hundreds of letters over the years from parents in my constituency. A local lady involved in local education was reported to have said:
(b) no significant change in the basis of selection."
"Parental choice is a myth in Wandsworth. It is only the academic elite or children of parents who can afford coaching for their school entrance tests."
That sums up the position in the borough of Wandsworth.
"CASE is amazed that a Labour Government seems to be happy to allow more selection to be introduced especially when it claims it wants schools to be inclusive and is concerned about social exclusion.
I do not think that the Bill will unpick anything. Ministers claim that that is not true, and that the Bill will gradually achieve an unpicking of our current selective system. If that is true, they were being fiendishly clever in their design of the legislation.
Rather than encouraging selection this Government should be unpicking the school pecking order which has reduced choice for most parents and damaged our children for so long."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |